On Wednesday 29 August 2007 17:52:44 Ian Stirling wrote:
> So 'true GPL' systems should discourage users installing commercial
> software?
Closed source (proprietary) software, yes. Note that OSS _can_ be commercial,
and I don't have a problem with that. OSS is ok and proprietary software is
OK, but proprietary riding on OSS momentum for personal benefit without
returning anything to the community is the thing I don't like. The word
discourage is actually very good here - the users SHOULD have the freedom
making that choice, but also should know the drawbacks and implications (do
you want to chroot it ? how will you manage package upgrades and
dependencies ?) that it has on their machines AND the community as a whole.
Take the case of a small scale closed source app done in a one-man-show
fashion. If it does a decent job at a small cost, and we embrace it, it
brings the actual OSS/GNU developer (like members of the OpenMoko team whom
we cherish, right ?) in a bad position - he suddenly becomes the bad guy who
is robbing the fair coder of his income, makes it hard to return the money
invested in the unit (especially gets nasty if the closed source programmer
actually IS a nice guy). On the other hand, if there IS a properly made close
source app it will eliminate the 'itch' which most of the times result in
the 'scratch' - a really free, community application. This might sound good
at first, but gets bad quick, but let's not get into a Cathedral vs Bazaar
discussion. An example of such a free-project-gone-bad which comes first to
my mind was perhaps Sveasoft and their Linksys WRT54G firmware, which on one
side was great bc it allowed many owners to get extra features not available
in the factory firmware (and thus was the reason for many to buy the unit in
the first place), but on the other hand did nothing for the community, and so
delayed the transition for many users to the from-scratch OpenWRT effort
which, in the end, did prove a technically more advanced solution which is
available to everybody for free in all senses, but that transition ended in a
LOT of bad blood and many many very heated license debates (for which, IMO,
the WRT54G communities are unfortunately quite reknowned).
> If there is no open-source alternative, and I choose to sell commercial
> software that users can install on their phone, how is this wrong?
Not wrong, but (IMO, but I understand many will disagree) not in the spirit of
free software either. That's why I didn't say it's illegal, just that it has
nothing to do with the freedom GPL actually gives to the end-user (rights to
(re)distribute, rights to get the source and tinker, right to give code to
the community to be continually improved, that - at least in theory - can't
by just resold for a profit). I must stress you already HAD the choice of
what sort of software you install on most phones, or to develop software for
minimal/no cost for J2ME, Symbian, there is no additional freedom there
(what's barring me from making a GPL Symbian or J2ME project ?). The
non-existence of certain apps bc of non-feasibility or lack of interest is
NOT a limitation of freedom (the fact that I can't pay for a
Neo1973+shipping+taxes doesn't mean that I'm not free to buy one) ! If you
only use Linux and GPL as a vehicle for closed applications, then you are in
effect doing what Motorola is doing - hiding the system behind the JVM for
the proprietary parts (which is roughly what a chroot would do, too).
In any case, I'm finished with this thread. I've said how it looks from my
viewpoint of an OSS supporter (I'm really not a GPL zealot, I just feel that
in many areas a consistent OSS approach gives superior results to traditional
business models), feel free to disagree, nothing wrong with opposing
opinions.